

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As the warring ruling class seems to be pushing for nuclear brinkmanship, on this election night let us not be distracted.
Much significance will happen at the end of Election Day, and a countdown will begin at 11:00 p.m. PDT on November 5th. While everyone’s attention will be on who our next president will be, the U.S. The Air Force will test-launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a dummy hydrogen bomb on the tip from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The missile will cross the Pacific Ocean and 22 minutes later crash into the Marshall Islands. The U.S. Air Force does this several times a year. The launches are always at night while Americans are sleeping.
This is what nightmares are made of—between 1946 and 1958 the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, and the result is that the Marshallese people have lost their pristine environment and face serious health problems. Our environment is threatened here as well. Not only did the indigenous Chumash people lose their sacred land to Vandenberg Air Force Base, but also America’s Heartland presently has around 400 ICBMs stored in underground silos equipped with nuclear warheads that are ready to launch at a hair trigger’s notice. Named “MinuteMen III,” after Revolutionary War soldiers who could reload and shoot a gun in less than a minute, ICBMs not only put Americans at risk of accident, but they put all life on earth in danger.
ICBMs are not viable for national defense. They are a relic of a bygone era having been invented by Nazi Germany, and their presence only escalates the risk of nuclear accidents or conflicts. A single launch could lead to a nuclear exchange that would annihilate cities, contaminate the environment, and cause irreversible harm to our planet’s ecosystem. Once an ICBM is launched, it cannot be recalled. I don’t want a nuclear strike or accident to happen. We can change course now, and our first step is to decommission the ICBM program also because it is a staggering financial burden to maintain.
Nuclear weapons only provide the terrifying threat of annihilation, either by command or by accident. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs only make the world less safe and strip us of security.
The U.S. plans to spend over $1.2 trillion on nuclear modernization over the next 30 years, which means new, larger nuclear bombs and new, larger ICBMs called Sentinels that will need to be tested. This massive investment in outdated technology diverts critical funds away from humanitarian needs like healthcare, education, and healing climate change—issues that directly impact our quality of life, and our children’s future.
I teach 4th and 5th graders Creative Writing. I adore children’s imaginations, but when my students were given the assignment to write about something important to them, they wrote lines that broke my heart. This is a wake-up call for us adults to face the reality we have made for our children.
“Such a shame, a perfectly good planet, trashed.” Claire, age 9.
“What would you think about no nature in the world? No trees, no butterflies, no birds or bunnies at all! Most important of all, no people. There would be no technology, no schools, no history, no entertainment; everything we have worked for would be wasted. What would you think about a beautiful world that basically had nothing? I think I would absolutely hate it.,” Brynn, age 9.
Other than destruction caused by industrial global warming and by war, which the children are all-too aware of, this child does not know what actually could turn nature and civilization to nothing in a matter of minutes; she doesn’t know about “nuclear winter” or how vulnerable we are to a nuclear accident. Most people don’t.
The claim is that nuclear weapons are deterrents, but it is diplomacy that creates alliances and peace. Nuclear weapons only provide the terrifying threat of annihilation, either by command or by accident. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs only make the world less safe and strip us of security.
As the warring ruling class seems to be pushing for nuclear brinkmanship, on this election night let us not be distracted. By decommissioning ICBMs, the U.S. could lead the world in reducing the nuclear threat and encourage other nations to do the same. For the sake of our health, environment, and the safety of future generations, it’s time to scrap the ICBM program. We owe it to our children to invest in a future that prioritizes peace and sustainability over destruction.
As it is we the people who possess the right of self-determination, we must confront the material reality of our homeland and face what it will take to protect it. Do we have the courage to change our country for the better and ensure our futures? Yes we do, and now is the time to take action.
“Only we, the public, can force our representatives to reverse their abdication of the war powers that the Constitution gives exclusively to the Congress,” said Daniel Ellsberg, U.S. military analyst, economist, and author of "The Doomsday Machine."
May we cancel this nightmare weapons program for once and for all and give our children the security that they deserve.
Tell Congress: Cancel Sentinel Missile Program—More Than 700 Scientists Agree: https://secure.ucsusa.org/a/2024-cancel-sentinel-letter
Learn more about the dangers of ICBMS and get involved. https://defusenuclearwar.org/eliminate-icbms/
Between 1946 and 1958 the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands that vaporized whole islands, carved craters into the shallow lagoons, and exiled hundreds of people from their homes.
March 1 marks 70 years since the U.S. used its biggest ever nuclear weapon—on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The bomb was 15 megatons, 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
On this day we remember the victims of the Castle Bravo nuclear blast and all other victims of the nuclear era, which has brought untold pain, death, and damage, affecting both people and planet in profound ways.
There’s no better way to remember Castle Bravo day than by taking action on behalf of the victims of radiation and pushing for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Between 1946 and 1958 the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. The blasts vaporized whole islands, carved craters into the shallow lagoons, and exiled hundreds of people from their homes. The Castle Bravo blast was the largest of all, sending particulate and gaseous fallout around the entire planet.
Concerned U.S. citizens tried to stop the tests by contacting Congress, the president, and the press and by demonstrating on campuses and in the streets. They weren’t successful through these conventional means, so in 1958 four Quakers bought a small sailboat, the Golden Rule, and attempted to sail her right into the testing zone in the Marshall Islands.
The crew of the Golden Rule was arrested in Honolulu and could not continue. A second boat, the Phoenix of Hiroshima, took the baton and completed the sail into the Marshall Islands, resulting in the arrest of the Phoenix’s captain. The actions and arrests of these crews spurred a massive public outcry that finally led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
The Golden Rule also inspired the founding of Greenpeace in 1971, whose first mission was to sail to Amchitka Island, Alaska, to stop nuclear weapons testing. The U.S. Navy stopped Greenpeace, too. The nuclear bomb the group had come to stop was detonated, but the subsequent tests were canceled and the U.S. stopped the entire Amchitka nuclear test program.Greenpeace and her vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, played an important role in the Marshall Islands in 1985 when Rongelap residents asked Greenpeace to help them relocate to a new home. Both Bikini and Enewetak’s people were evacuated from their island homes prior to the nuclear tests, hoping to avoid radioactive fallout. But the inhabitants of Rongelap (150 kilometers away) were not so fortunate. Within four hours of the Castle Bravo explosion, fallout was settling on the island. A fine white ash landed on the heads and bare arms of people standing in the open. It dissolved into water supplies and drifted into houses.
With double the usual miscarriages and other health problems caused by the Castle Bravo test, the people of Rongelap begged the U.S. government to evacuate them. But they were now human “guinea pigs,” and U.S. scientists wanted to study the effects of radiation on the population.
Finally, in 1985, Greenpeace made three 180 kilometer trips from Rongelap to Mejato (in the Kwajalein Atoll), taking 300 islanders to safety.
The Golden Rule disappeared from public view in 1958 and eventually sank in Humboldt Bay in far northern California in 2010. After a five-year rebuild, she was re-launched and returned to her anti-nuclear mission by Veterans For Peace.
In 2016 when the Golden Rule visited Portland, Oregon, we visited with a Marshallese group who built a traditional sailing canoe. Most people in and from the Marshall Islands have never heard of the Golden Rule or the Phoenix of Hiroshima. However, when they hear the story, they are very excited that people attempted to help them all those years ago.

Kiana Juda-Angelo presented the Golden Rule Project with a Marshallese flag at our public presentation in Portland, Oregon in 2016.

Hawaii has one of the largest populations of Marshall Islanders in the U.S. It has been our pleasure to meet them and commemorate Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day in Honolulu in 2019.

In 2022, as the Golden Rule sailed down the Mississippi River along the “Great Loop,” we passed through Dubuque, Iowa, where there is a community of 800 or so Marshall Islanders. Veterans For Peace member Art Roche told them the story of the Golden Rule’s 1958 voyage and that we were bringing the boat to Dubuque! They greeted us with leis and songs of sweet harmony in their traditional clothing. We enjoyed dancing, speeches, and song for a whole weekend.

When the Golden Rule was in New York City we met the Permanent United Nations Representative from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Ambassador Amatlain Elizabeth Kabua. She explained that there were several issues that could be improved:
For the last three decades, Marshall Islanders have sought compensation from the U.S. for the health and environmental effects of nuclear testing. They’ve been denied standing to sue in U.S. courts, and Congress has declined their requests. The Compact of Free Association (COFA) which governs the relationship between the U.S., Palau, Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands was renegotiated in 2023. However, Congress has yet to fund the $7 billion dollars that was approved.
The Marshall Islands are also being hit hard by global warming and slowly sinking into the rising seas. This will submerge a highly radioactive nuclear waste dump, Runit dome. Runit dome contains nuclear contamination from both the Marshall Islands and the Nevada test site.

On March 1, let’s remember all of the victims of radiation—from Hiroshima and Nagasaki; nuclear testing areas; and uranium mining, milling, processing, and disposal sites.
Let your senators and representative know that you support fully funding the Compact of Free Association (COFA).
Tell them that you support the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, including its expansion to include those people exposed from the Trinity test in New Mexico in 1945.
Work for the U.S. to sign the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which includes compensation for victims of radiation. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017, is working hard to get all nations to sign the treaty.
Back from the Brink urges the U.S. government to:
Their website has an advocacy toolkit and sample scripts for talking with the press and policy makers.
Two important bills are in Congress: H. Res 77 would implement the Back from the Brink Measures. HR 2775 would move money from nuclear weapons manufacturing to funding fossil-free, nuclear-free energy as well as human needs. Ask your representative to sponsor these bills and your senators to introduce a companion bill!
There’s no better way to remember Castle Bravo day than by taking action on behalf of the victims of radiation and pushing for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
"These actions undermine the integrity of the COP presidency and the process as a whole," former Marshallese President Hilda Heine wrote in her resignation letter to COP28 chief Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber.
United Nations Climate Change Conference advisory board member Hilda Heine resigned on Friday, citing reports that the Emirati oil executive presiding over COP28 has been busy pushing for fossil fuel deals in the run-up to the event.
Earlier this week, the Center for Climate Reporting and the BBC reported that Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber—who is simultaneously serving as COP28 president and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC)—"has held scores of meetings with senior government officials, royalty, and business leaders from around the world in recent months" as the "COP28 team has quietly planned to use this access as an opportunity to increase exports of ADNOC's oil and gas."
"These actions undermine the integrity of the COP presidency and the process as a whole."
In her resignation letter, which was seen and first reported by Reuters, Heine—who is a former president of the low-lying Marshall Islands, one of the world's most climate-imperiled nations—called the United Arab Emirates' plan to make oil and gas deals at COP28 "deeply disappointing."
"These actions undermine the integrity of the COP presidency and the process as a whole," she asserted, adding that the only way Al Jaber can restore confidence is to "deliver an outcome that demonstrates that you are committed to phasing out fossil fuels."
Al Jaber has denied that he's using COP28 for fossil fuel deal-making.
"These allegations are false, not true, incorrect, and not accurate," he said Wednesday at a Dubai press conference. "And it's an attempt to undermine the work of the COP28 presidency."
A spokesperson for COP28's presidency said they are "extremely disappointed by Dr. Heine's resignation."
"We appreciated her advice throughout the year and that we only wish she would have been with us here in the UAE celebrating the adoption of a fund that will support vulnerable island states and those most affected by climate impacts," the spokesperson said, referring to the global "loss and damage" fund that one critic
slammed as "a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the need they are to address."
The UAE isn't the only major oil producer pushing fossil fuels while participating in COP28. Saudi Arabia—whose Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Thursday was among the world leaders kicking off talks at the conference—"is overseeing a sweeping global investment program" intended to "ensure that emerging economies across Africa and Asia become vastly more dependent on oil," the Center for Climate Reporting and Channel 4 News revealed this week.
Some U.S. officials are considering whether to issue a formal apology to the Marshall Islands, a small island nation in the Pacific Ocean that the United States subjected to years of nuclear testing and human experimentation during the Cold War.
Last month, several members of Congress introduced resolutions that, if approved, would offer an apology to the people of the Marshall Islands who suffered from nuclear testing and the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste.
From 1946 to 1958, the United States detonated sixty-seven nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, destroying entire islands and causing serious health problems for local residents, including cancer.
"Our government used the Marshallese as guinea pigs to study the effects of radiation and turned ancestral islands into dumping grounds for nuclear waste," said U.S. Representative Katie Porter, Democrat of California, who introduced one of the resolutions into Congress.
The Marshall Islands, home to about 50,000 people, are located 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. The nation consists of two island chains that include several small islands and low-lying atolls. Its total landmass, which is threatened by rising sea levels, is around seventy square miles.
From 1947 to 1986, the Marshall Islands were part of the U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Since then, the nation has remained under indirect U.S. control through a compact of free association, in which the United States is the dominant military power in the region in exchange for providing economic assistance to the islands.
With these economic provisions set to expire at the end of 2023, U.S. officials have been trying to renegotiate the compact, which provides about 21 percent of the islands' expenditures. As Marshallese leaders have been pressing their concerns about the ongoing effects of past nuclear testing, U.S. officials have been struggling to arrange formal negotiations.
"We made clear through our ambassador there that we're ready for formal negotiations," State Department official Mark Lambert told Congress last month. "We have not received a response back."
From 1946 to 1958, the United States detonated sixty-seven nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, destroying entire islands and causing serious health problems for local residents, including cancer. The United States also conducted experiments on the Marshallese people, transported soil from a nuclear testing site in Nevada to the islands, and experimented with lethal biological weapons, all without the knowledge and consent of the Marshallese people.
"A formal apology is long overdue to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the harmful legacy of U.S. nuclear testing," Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a March 1 statement.
This legacy includes Runit Dome, a dumping ground for radioactive soil and debris built by the United States in the 1970s. Although the site is capped by a concrete dome, its interior has been leaking, raising concerns about its effects on the surrounding environment.
At a Congressional hearing last October, Biden Administration officials offered contradictory accounts of U.S. responsibility for the leaking site. Energy Department official Matthew Moury claimed the Marshallese government is fully responsible for the dome, but Interior Department official Nikolao Pula disagreed, saying that the United States bears "some appearance of responsibility" to work with the Marshallese government.
Frustrated by the Biden Administration's lack of transparency, Porter accused the State Department of spending "a considerable amount of time" coaching the witnesses "on what not to say." She said an apology to the people of the Marshall Islands from the United States would be a necessary first step toward repairing the relationship.
"It's very hard for me to understand how we have recognized what we have done with this testing, and how we have accepted and acted on responsibility if we haven't even issued an apology," Porter said.
Many U.S. leaders insist that the United States has already taken full responsibility for its years of nuclear testing, citing an agreement with the Marshall Islands that refers to a "full settlement" for all claims related to this testing. The settlement included a payment of $150 million.
But what these U.S. officials fail to acknowledge is that the agreement leaves open the possibility of additional compensation, particularly for changed circumstances, such as new information about the nuclear programs.
"It said that if new information came to light or the $150 million proved inadequate, the Marshallese could ask to reconsider the deal," Porter noted.
With negotiations over the compact stalled, several Congressional leaders are growing increasingly concerned about the implications for the U.S. military presence in the region. Without some kind of settlement, they fear that the United States could lose access to a strategically important part of the Pacific Ocean.
The islands are home to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, one of the military's most important missile ranges. It is used by the U.S. military to test offensive and defensive ballistic missiles, including hypersonic missiles that fly several times faster than the speed of sound.
"The Ronald Reagan test site is vitally important for our ballistic missile testing," Defense Department official Siddharth Mohandas told Congress last month. "We test hypersonics there."
For this reason, some Senate leaders are giving more serious consideration to the idea of issuing a formal apology to the Marshallese people. At a hearing last month, U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pressed three officials from the Biden Administration on the recently introduced resolutions. "It is very important to the peoples of these nations that we formally apologize," Hirono said.
The administration officials claimed to have no knowledge of the White House's position on the matter, leaving Congress with questions about whether the officials would prioritize the issue.
"I would very much like all of you to get back to me as to why we cannot support a formal apology," Hirono said. "I'd say that it's long past time."
As world leaders prepare to jet off to this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Scotland, the heads of several Pacific island nations in recent days urged world leaders to leave their good intentions at home and commit to urgent, meaningful climate action.
"We refuse to be the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, as we are so often called."
On Thursday, Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, Marshallese President David Kabua, and Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa addressed the European Union-Indo-Pacific Virtual Conference on Climate Change.
"For our sake and all of humanity's, small island developing states will use the full measure of our moral authority against major emitters who refuse to arrive in Glasgow with strong commitments," Bainimarama told the conference, according to Agence France-Presse.
Bainimarama lamented that low-lying Pacific island nations--which are among the least responsible for the climate emergency and but most adversely affected by it--stressed that the Glasgow summit, also known as COP 26, must not end in "a litany of good intentions."
"The consequences of inaction are unthinkable," he said. "The loss of entire islands, as well as vast stretches of coastline from Lagos to Venice to Miami, the coastal belt of Bangladesh. Mass climate-driven migration, wildfire seasons in arid regions that incinerate homes, farms, ecosystems, and an unimaginable loss of biodiversity--the list of horrors goes on."
Earlier this week, Bainimarama angrily told a forum organized by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's Climate Reality Project that "we refuse to be the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, as we are so often called."
"We want more of ourselves than to be helpless songbirds whose demand serves as a warning to others," he said, urging Pacific island nations to not allow world leaders to "sneak in and out of Glasgow without making a single serious commitment."
According to The Syndey Morning Herald:
Bainimarama said Pacific Island nations will demand that... wealthier countries make good on the commitment they made during the Paris talks to extend to developing nations $100 billion in finance annually for climate adaptation and mitigation; and to commit to emission cuts that keep the 1.5degC warming target within reach.
"That is our expectation for every nation," said Bainimarama. "Our actions will decide whether islands exist or are lost to the rising seas."
Kabua said Thursday that "my country and this region needs the world to recognize that this cannot wait."
"We face the most difficult questions--which islands to preserve, what happens when our people are forced to move against their will, how will we preserve our culture?" he said. "We need a signal from the rest of the world, particularly the large emitters, that our voices and our needs are being heard."
Mata'afa told the E.U.-backed conference that "we are already experiencing intense and frequent tropical cyclones and droughts, increased heavy precipitation and floods, ocean warming, and acidification. The impacts are detrimental to our health, wellbeing, livelihoods, and way of life."
Speaking late last month at the United Nations General Assembly, she stressed: "It is about action for survival, and we all need to shoulder our responsibilities and play our part. The big polluters and emitters need to demonstrate more commitment and leadership."
"The upcoming COP in Glasgow is our point of no return," she added. "Our commitments from there onwards will determine the future trajectory of our planet. Can we avoid a climate catastrophe in our children's lifetime?"
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday rejected three nuclear disarmament cases filed by the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and India, on the grounds that the court does not have the jurisdiction to handle them.
The ICJ, the United Nations' highest court, ruled 9-8 the plaintiffs did not prove that a legal argument existed between the island country and the three nuclear nations before the case was filed in 2014. The Marshall Islands said the states had failed to fulfill their disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
According to the Associated Press, in the case against the U.K., the panel was deadlocked until ICJ President Ronny Abraham cast a vote in support of the nuclear powers. In Pakistan and India's cases, the margin was 9-7.
"If the ICJ fails to properly consider their case, where do the Marshallese go to seek justice?" said Kate Hudson, general secretary of the U.K.-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
"The U.K. signed the NPT almost fifty years ago, committing to enter negotiations to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Instead, the government is in the process of spending at least PS205 billion on new nuclear weapons--with the metal cutting tragically starting today," Hudson continued. "A mechanism is needed to ensure compliance with this international treaty, as currently the U.K. is dodging its obligations."
The initial case was filed against nine states in total--the U.K., India, and Pakistan, as well as the U.S., France, Russia, China, North Korea, and Israel--but the other six never made it to the preliminary hearings.
The Marshall Islands has vested interest in disarmament because the tiny Pacific nation served as an unwilling nuclear testing ground for the U.S. from 1946 to 1958. The so-called "Bravo" hydrogen bomb, tested at Bikini Atoll, was estimated to be 1,000 times bigger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Many native residents were forced to flee their lands and thousands were exposed to radioactive material as a result of these tests. Former Marshall Islands foreign minister Tony deBrum testified at ICJ hearings in March that he witnessed nuclear tests as a nine-year-old boy.
"The entire sky turned blood red," he told the panel at the time. "Many died, or suffered birth defects never before seen and cancers as a result of contamination."
"Several islands in my country were vaporized and others are estimated to remain uninhabitable for thousands of years," he said.
Phon van den Biesen, a lawyer for the Marshall Islands, told the AP after the decision, "If the court keeps creating this sort of threshold, what is the court for? It's a dispute that is clear to all of the world except for eight judges here."
Hudson added, "It is no wonder that [the Marshall Islands] want to see an end to nuclear weapons."
Decades after parts of its territory were "vaporized" by United States nuclear testing, the Republic of the Marshall Islands on Monday launched an international court battle against nuclear superpowers.
The Pacific island country has sued nine nations for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1970, and now three of those lawsuits are proceeding in the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Britain, India, and Pakistan have agreed to take part in the proceedings. The other defendants--the U.S., France, Russia, Israel, China, and North Korea--declined to participate. While India and Pakistan are not signatories to the 1970 treaty, the Marshall Islands' legal team argues that their nuclear armaments are in violation of international law.
Yahoo News reported:
Judges at the International Court of Justice are holding a series of hearings over the next week-and-a-half to decide whether it is indeed competent to hear the lawsuits brought against India and Pakistan.
A third hearing against Britain, scheduled to start on Wednesday, will be devoted to "preliminary objections" raised by London.
The unprecedented lawsuit is moving forward at the same time that many powerful countries, including the U.S., are increasing and modernizing their nuclear arsenal, and as North Korea threatens Western nations with claims of possessing a nuclear bomb.
The U.S. detonated 67 nuclear bombs over the Marshall Islands between 1946-1958, the equivalent of 1.7 Hiroshima bombs per day for 12 years, as part of its nuclear weapons testing program, according to the anti-nuclear weapons group Nuclear Zero whose lawyers are arguing on behalf of the island nation.
Marshall Islanders argue that they have suffered tremendously from the tests and resultant lingering radioactivity, and that they therefore have a special interest in seeing the world's nuclear-armed nations work to reduce the chance of further detonations.
Tony de Brum, the former foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, attested to the horrors of nuclear weapons as he told the international court that "the entire sky turned blood red," when he witnessed a nuclear test at age nine while fishing with his grandfather, the Associated Press reported.
"He said some of his country's islands were 'vaporized' by the tests," the news agency wrote.
Nuclear Zero on its website quoted Rokko Legenbelik, a Marshall Islander who described witnessing one of the most powerful nuclear tests, known as Bravo, performed by the U.S. in the Pacific atoll in 1954:
"It was like the sun was all around us. And we heard the big thunder. I was very scared. My parents didn't understand what was happening," said Rokko.
The explosion sent a radioactive cloud some 20 miles into the atmosphere and created a nuclear hurricane that engulfed Rongelap. The Bravo test had been carried out despite a change in the wind's direction, and the local residents were not warned ahead of time. Fallout rained down on the unsuspecting islanders--men in their fishing boats, others tending or gathering crops, children at play.
Rokko remembers that after the Bravo explosion, every man, woman and child on Rongelap Atoll was sickened by the yellowish "snow" that fell from the sky and blanketed her island. Both of her parents later died of cancer, as did many other villagers. Rokko herself suffered from thyroid cancer. Two of her children died of complications she believes were associated with the lingering effects of the fallout.
One hundred and ninety countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, the most signatories of any international arms agreement. Those nations signing the treaty agreed "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Forty-four years later, Nuclear Zero observes that "there are still no negotiations in sight." In addition, the group notes that nuclear-armed nations "are actively planning for nuclear weapon deployment at least through the end of the 21st century, continue to invest in modernizing their nuclear arsenals," and "ignore multilateral forums that discuss the need to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons."
"We are fighting for what we believe is the only solution, in terms of peace and prosperity in the world of the future," de Brum explained in a press conference when the lawsuit was first launched in 2014:
When I was in Paris, I met with Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner, a poet and young mother from the Marshall Islands. Kathy told stories of king tides breaking through her coral island's seawalls, with water quietly rising into her sleeping cousin's bedroom before a huge wave came and knocked her house over. (If her cousin's mother hadn't woken her, she would've went with it.)
I also met with Esau Sinook, an 18-year-old Inupiat Native American who lives on a barrier island called Shishmaref off the northwest coast of Alaska. The island is losing 3-4 meters of land a year and houses are falling into the sea.
"There is an incredibly powerful symbol right now in Europe: the boat. This is in the newspapers all the time. We know what that means. It means someone, in the poetry of it, putting everything they have into a small container and setting off, unsure of where we're going." --Kevin BucklandI also met Zara Pardiwalla, of the Seychelles, whose island home in the Indian Ocean faces saltier soil and bleached corals, meaning fishermen have to sail further and further out to find better catch.
Here's the rub: We don't know what to call these people. There is no label for Kathy or Esau or Zara on the international stage.
One of the most contested parts of the Paris negotiations was the issue of climate refugees. The U.S. removed compensation from the table before the talks even started. Still, even before the final draft, there was mention of forming a "climate displacement facility"—some entity that could help the folks staring out at Island-ruining waves. That got cut, too.
What made it into the Paris agreement is a pledge to "address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change," with a report back penciled for next year's summit in Morocco.
While this pledge is as watered down as you can get -- it also represents a lifeline. To understand how to seize it and why it took us so long to get here.
Erica Bower, an expert on "Loss and Damage" with the advocacy group Sustain US, told me that there is "no universal word to describe what it means to be forced to flee from your home." As a result, she said, "there have been so many debates in the last decade about definitions that it's stalled progress."
"Because people have been so fixated on having the right term, they don't actually act, they don't actually create the infrastructures that are needed to support these populations."
Some people want to use the phrase "climate migrants" while others want to use "climate refugees," and yet others want to use "disaster displaced person."
While "climate refugee" has the most punch to it, it's riddled with problems. As Bower explained it, one of those problems are that the phrase "climate refugee" implies sole causality when often climate change is an exacerbating force that worsens economic and political drivers (think: the Syrian refugee/war crisis and the 4-year record drought that preceded it).
Another major problem with the term "climate refugee" is it removes agency. According to Bower, "climate refugee" paints someone as a victim whereas people in Kiribati want to be described as "climate warriors" -- as people who have tremendous resilience and who will fight to stay in their country as long as they possibly can.
Without a name, it's been nearly impossible to rally for the world's first climate lost -- the people who are fleeing a planet that's gotten a lot tougher to live on. Kathy, Esau, and Zara still have homes, but since 2008, at least 22.5 million people were displaced each year because of sudden extreme weather events -- floods, typhoons, cyclones, and the like. That number is over double what it was in the 70s, and is a tenth of the 200 million climate-pushed migrants expected by 2050.
So, as we find footing after Paris, the question is: How do we find footing for the people who can't go home anymore?
The answer, I believe, lies somewhere at the juncture of an honest reckoning of loss, and a more nuanced struggle for justice.
As a movement, we've been stuck with the idea that we can fully and completely stop climate change. The waves of climate displaced--those we struggle to categorize or name properly--represent to at least some degree our failure as a movement to date. It's a failure we need to acknowledge, but more so it means that as we fight for the death knell of fossil fuels, we've now got to include justice for the survivors of a broken world for whom the renewable energy transition will simply come too late.
We saw the start of this evolution in Paris, where the final "D12" action included laying out long red canvas banners on the cobbled streets.
The red lines action began at the "tomb of the unknown soldier," where an eternal flame burns. People paid respect for climate change's victims—past and future—by dropping red tulips on the long banners.
The end of Paris showed a reckoning of human losses, an evolution from the naivete of saving the world, to trying to survive this one as best we can. While this work will include seeing through "the beginning of the end of fossil fuels," it now must also evolve into a global fight for the survivors -- for the displaced.
One other factor can help us seize the Paris lifeline. Symbols may offer a workaround since we've been stuck with clunky vocabulary.
Kevin Buckland, 350.org Arts Ambassador, described how symbols can act as containers for the losses and rallying cries we can't yet name.
Kevin told me about a new symbol that's been taking shape. "I think there is an incredibly powerful symbol right now in Europe, which is the boat," Buckland said. "This is in the newspapers all the time. We know what that means. It means someone, in the poetry of it, putting everything they have into a small container and setting off, unsure of where we're going."
New symbols that show humans in the crosshairs, like the boat, can maybe help us break the decade-long logjam to need the right words and incite the loud movement that is actually what we truly need to help the world's first climate homeless.
One of the oldest symbols of the climate fight, the polar bear, seems like it may have run its course.
At the end of our interview, Kathy, the Marshall Islands poet, told me:
"So, for people whose islands might be drowning, is that symbol not strong enough? Because polar bears are cute, you care more about them?"
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith . . ."
What if words like this actually meant something?
This is Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which the United States signed in 1970. It continues: ". . . on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith . . ."
What if words like this actually meant something?
This is Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which the United States signed in 1970. It continues: ". . . on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Please read it again, slowly, understanding that 190 nations have signed onto these words: "a treaty on general and complete (nuclear) disarmament." Here's a wild thought. What if they were recited aloud every Sunday in churches and other public spaces across the nation, the way congregants at my parents' church recited the Apostle's Creed when I was a boy? Each word, slowly uttered, welled up from the soul. The words were sacred. Isn't a world free of nuclear weapons -- and beyond that, free of war itself -- worth believing in?
The treaty's preamble also calls for "the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery . . ."
What if these words could stand up to the geopolitics of cynicism and military-industrial profit? What if the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons -- the NPT -- weren't simply a verbal coffin in which hope for humanity's future lay interred? What if it could come to life and help reorganize global culture?
I ask such questions only because I suddenly believe it's possible, thanks to an unlikely player in the geopolitical realm: a nation with a population of about 70,000 people. Last week I wrote about the fact that the Republic of the Marshall Islands has filed suit in both the International Court of Justice in the Hague and U.S. federal court against the five NPT signatories -- the United States, the U.K., China, Russia and France -- that possess nuclear weapons, demanding that they comply with the treaty they signed. For good measure, the lawsuit demands compliance from the other four nuclear nations as well -- Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea -- on the grounds of international law and, well, sanity.
Isn't a world free of nuclear weapons -- and beyond that, free of war itself -- worth believing in?Here's the thing. This audacious lawsuit is a disarmament wedge. Since I wrote last week's column, I've been in touch with Laurie Ashton, the lead attorney for the case in U.S. federal court, and have read the brief appealing the suit's dismissal, which was filed last month. To get this close to the case -- to its language, to its soul -- is to feel possibility begin pulsing in a unique way.
As Ashton put it, "The NGOs and protesters are just talk, talk, talk. When you sue them, then they listen."
Attesting to the seriousness of this suit, she noted: "The Marshall Islands are on record. They have a mission to make sure this never happens to another people again."
This tiny nation of coral reefs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, once a U.S. trust territory, was the site of 67 above-ground nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958. These tests, so cynically perpetrated on an "expendable" people, turned much of the area into radioactive wasteland, wrecked a way of life and created terrible health problems for the residents, which they are still struggling with two generations later.
"No nation should ever suffer as we have," said Tony de Brum, foreign minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Speaking of the appeal of the decision dismissing the U.S suit, he declared: "We are in this for the long haul. We remain steadfast in our belief that nuclear weapons benefit no one and that what is right for humankind will prevail."
Only as I began to grasp the courage and determination behind the lawsuits did the words of the NPT start to come to life for me. In nearly half a century, no other nation or organization has sued for the enforcement of this treaty, which has been contemptuously ignored by the nations that possess and continue to upgrade their nuclear arsenals. The U.S. routinely invests tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars annually into its nukes. The NPT, for all practical purposes, doesn't exist -- not for the haves.
But it does exist.
"At the time" -- in the 1960s, as the NPT was being negotiated -- "there was intent to negotiate nuclear disarmament," Ashton said. "At the time, (the nuclear danger) was much more in the consciousness. It was a different era. The level of complacency we have now was not the case then."
That intent was encased in legal language, then filed under the heading "irrelevant." It disappeared for 45 years. But now it's back.
In the case in U.S. federal court, which challenges only the U.S. arsenal, the Marshall Islands are claiming injury in two ways: 1. As a signatory of the treaty themselves, they are owed U.S. participation in disarmament negotiations, as per its agreement. 2. Without that participation, as the U.S. continues to upgrade and enhance its nuclear arsenal and maintain hundreds of weapons on hair-trigger alert, the Marshall Islands -- and all the rest of the Planet Earth -- are in "a measurable increased risk of grave danger" from nuclear weapons use, either intentional or accidental.
Oral arguments in the U.S. case are likely to begin sometime next year. There's no telling what will happen, of course. But this is not mere powerless, symbolic protest of a great wrong. The Marshall Islands suits challenge the nuclear states at a level that could yield real, not symbolic, victory and change.
As the website Nuclear Zero puts it: "The Republic of the Marshall Islands acts for the seven billion of us who live on this planet to end the nuclear weapons threat hanging over all humanity. Everyone has a stake in this."
Faced with the disastrous impacts of the growing climate crisis, the Marshall Islands, a remote Pacific island nation, has taken a decisive step towards the preservation of the planet, as well as its own land and people.
On Sunday, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) President Christopher Loeak announced his country would be the first small island nation to submit to the United Nations a clear climate target for 2025 ahead of the upcoming Paris climate summit.
"I am proud that, despite the climate disasters hitting our shores with increasing regularity, we remain committed to showing the way in the transition to a low-carbon economy," he said. "We may be small, but we exemplify the new reality that going low carbon is in everyone's interests. It improves our economy, our security, our health and our prosperity, particularly in the Pacific and more broadly in the developing world."
According to the pledge, known as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (or INDC), the island nation has committed to reduce emissions by 32 percent below 2010 levels by 2025, and 45 percent by 2030, with the longer-term vision of zero emissions by 2050, if not earlier.
This goal, Loaek says, makes RMI the first developing country to adopt a "more robust absolute economy-wide target" usually expected of industrialized countries. Previous negotiations have been stifled largely because rich nations have failed to commit to binding climate targets or take responsibility for their outsized contribution to the climate crisis.
Referencing this ongoing debate between developed and developing countries, RMI Minister of Foreign Affairs Tony de Brum added: "With most of the big emitters' targets now on the table, everyone know s we are falling well short. This is not something that can be ignored, nor swept away by political expediency."
"There can be no more excuses for delay or for low-balling ambition on the false premise that coal and other dirty fuels somehow increase prosperity," de Brum continued. "Exactly the opposite is true."
"Our message is simple: if one of the world's smallest, poorest and most geographically isolated countries can do it, so can you," he said.
Responding to the news, EU Climate Action Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete called the pledge "inspiring" and "exemplary."
The Marshall Islands, de Brum noted, has already led the world in its transition to renewable energy. "But going forward," he added, "we'll need to go harder, upscaling not only on solar, but also biofuels and wind, as well as the potential use of transformational technology, such as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion."